I'm not going to play this game with you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does Darwinian Evolution negate the existence of God?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
There are no games mate. I am only asking for substantiation of your own claim. But if you dont wish to engage that's fine.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Good response.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. Then provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Because there's no evidence of perfect design, perfect harmony, and nature only goes by its natural laws.
No one has observed any different that I would know about it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So how do you decide that natural laws governing the universe negates God?
This is akin to the topic.
Audie
Veteran Member
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Nothing I experience interferes with those laws. And I have never once heard of a supernatural event in my lifetime.
God is all knowing and all powerful and I can find no evidence of such life in my 49 years.
Nature can also be very brutal, and violent and that doesn't help the cause of a God who is all good.
Observing the wild animal world tells me that this existence is not well thought out. Survival depends on hunting and gathering. No God would make such a world.
Death is natural. And nothing interferes with any of it.
Audie
Veteran Member
None of it " negates god".. it is a shabby strawman, the more so as this "god" thing and its attributes are undeecribed.
Maybe god is thought to be a magic toad who sends email from the peak of everest to direct evolution.
Pretty near anything negates that.
"A" "god", of some sort somewhere?
Who knows or cares unless some trace of supportupung data shows up.
Our hero of the op might try thinking things through a bit on his own.
.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats the problem with living a moment without knowing the context of a conversation.
Have a blast living it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Why do you so steadfastly believe that it should necessarily interfere with laws of nature?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
While scientific evidence does, indeed exist, it doesn't encompass the "process" of abiogenesis from start to finish. There are people working on that more comprehensive evidence, but it is a fool who thinks that, even if/when they succeed (in producing the evidence that life can arise from nothing but the nonliving materials of the universe and the natural ongoing processes of the universe) that the idea of abiogenesis as Earth's particular start to life will be "proven."
Audie
Veteran Member
The problem is with someone who knows not
what he asking or talking about.
Asking for "facts"about science is but one
of many examples displayed so far.
Audie
Veteran Member
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Well perhaps the supernatural should be perfectly natural, but you never, ever see such things. In a world of death, and violence why doesn't one supernatural thing happen ever?
It's peculiar that everything experienced is natural, and nothing experienced is supernatural.
Add to that the fact that life is not well planned for and God seems to always be non existent.
God being the all of everything never communicates with the natural world.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You may have misread - the first part of that sentence makes it such that it is paraphrased as "it is a fool who thinks that... abiogenesis will be proven". I have some other gobbledegook in there in parens, and that's probably where the disconnect lies.
I also edited it to state, specifically, that it doesn't prove how Earth got its start to life. For if scientists actually DO manage to witness life arising from non-living material with nothing but the "laws" of the universe in play, then that does, likely, actually prove abiogenesis - since that term really only deals with the idea of life arising without biological precursors - not necessarily how life arose on Earth.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah. When an atheist quotes it "as fact" and another one thinks "I am he" and blindly jumps into tribalism cheaply looking for an opportunity for some adrenalin unfound elsewhere, this is how it looks.